Although Paul Trusten '73 forms an argument in support of war (Letter, Feb. 5) with a great deal of impressive rhetoric, it is just that--rhetoric, and nothing more. Mr. Trusten is right that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were an undeniably horrible series of events for all Americans. Because of Al Qaeda's history of terrorist attacks culminating in this tragedy, it was important to work to stop terrorism in all areas of the world. However, neither Saddam Hussein nor any other Iraqi was involved in the September 11 attacks. To base an argument for war on the idea that Hussein and the Iraqi government were involved, as Mr. Trusten does, is simply ludicrous. Beyond his statements about the wickedness of the September 11 attacks, Mr. Trusten says little to justify his hawkish position, meaning that his letter only served to instill fear in people while effectively doing nothing to build a case for war.
Given many people's misperceptions of the anti-war movement, it is important to clarify: no one believes that Saddam Hussein is a decent person whom we should become friends with. That said, Gen. Pervez Musharaff is by no means an innocuous character, while King Fahd and Vladimir Putin also have histories of terrible human rights abuses. Still, it is highly unlikely that any rational person would consider attacking Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Hussein's history is not such that he should be ignored and trusted; having meticulous weapons inspections is very unlike ignoring and trusting Hussein, though.
That is why the Brandeis Anti-War Coalition strongly endorses France's plan to triple the number of inspectors in Iraq and to enhance their autonomy. Only a policy like this one would actually be effective in preventing the Iraqi government from acquiring nuclear weapons or using the weapons currently in their possession. On the contrary, even the Central Intelligence Agency believes that an attack on Iraq would increase the likelihood that Iraq would launch an attack on either the United States or Israel. Without any strongly compelling reason to engage in war, risks such as this one along with the loss of military lives inherent in war mean that all other possibilities need to be exhausted before we conduct an attack.
It should be noted that, along with Mr. Trusten's arguments about the need for war, he made some rather snide and unjustified comments about anti-war protestors. Referring to opponents of the government as "traitors" brings only horrifying periods to mind: Stalinism and McCarthyism. Mr. Trusten's claims about the anti-war movement searching for "protest movement glitter," meanwhile, are incredibly inaccurate, particularly here at Brandeis. The Anti-War Coalition conducted a "Day of Dialogue" and invited several conservative groups to attend (although only ZaHaV chose to fully participate), is working toward having a campus-wide referendum stating opposition to an American attack on Iraq and is constantly searching for new ways to prevent an unwise war. None of these efforts is glamorous or fun, but all are important in the effort to bring about a better policy regarding Iraq.
The rhetoric concerning the upcoming possible war with Iraq has been sounded clearly by those on each side of the issue. The possibility of war is much too important to be left to simplistic rhetoric. Lives are at stake. It is imperative that we consider the war's consequences.-Daniel Mauer '06
North Quad Senator
Sponsor, Referendum Opposing an American Attack on Iraq
Member, Brandeis Anti-War Coalition